Standing Committee D

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Water Bill [Lords]

Clause 6 - Existing impounding works: works notices

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 7, in 
clause 6, page 6, line 10, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Wiggin.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 8, in
clause 6, page 6, line 15, at end insert 
 'within a specified time limit'.

Bill Wiggin: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Amess. These are minor probing amendments, but I thought that it would be helpful if they were included. Going back to the original Water Resources Act 1991, this aspect of the Bill is succinctly covered in the old legislation. It is short, straightforward and pretty clear. By tabling the amendment, I hoped to discover from the Minister what advantage the new wording delivers. I am sure that he has plenty to say on that, but I thought that the amendment would be helpful.
 The purpose of amendment No. 8 is to treat the Environment Agency in the same way as it treats other people. That would be constructive. We are dealing with empowerment of the agency. We are giving it quite strong powers that, if used wisely, will help the environment, but we also have a duty to secure some constraints on the agency to ensure that none of the new powers is taken too far. If the Minister could throw some light on that, we would be grateful.

Elliot Morley: Amendment No. 7 would remove the definition of a works notice for the purposes of the clause. It would broaden the scope of the agency to include whatever it wanted in such a measure. I do not know whether the intention is to limit the agency's powers to use works notices, but it would not achieve that. The subsection limits what a works notice can include, and although, of course, I do not expect the agency to misuse the power in any way, the definition will provide some protection to the owners or operators of those works. There are no current powers to serve works notices on impounding works that are causing problems. This provision provides the ability to do that.
 On amendment No. 8, I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 36 of the Bill, lines 33 to 35. They do precisely what I think he intends by his amendments. The relevant provisions are incorporated into the works notices provisions by subsection (3). I hope that that gives him the answer that he was looking for.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the second part of the Minister's answer. That allays my fears on that aspect of the legislation. The first part is covered best by subsection (2)(a), which deals with such works or operations as
''appear to the Environment Agency to be required for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b)''.
 That relates to the protection of the environment. It is a pretty-wide ranging power. It would not be beyond the wit of the Environment Agency to include just about anything within it. The Minister argues that by removing that part of the clause, my amendment would widen the powers, but I suggest that they are already wide and that my proposal would not necessarily do exactly what he says. 
 I recognise, however, that my simple deletion would possibly not be the best way to achieve the objective. I am happy to withdraw the amendments safe in the knowledge—a nod from the Minister will do—that we are looking at constraining some of the agency's powers so that they are proportionate. That is a tremendous word to use in the circumstances, particularly as the Minister used it earlier when we talked about other wide powers having unforeseen consequences. He said that ''appropriate'', ''cost-effective'' and ''proportionate'' were the criteria to be used, and with that in mind, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 21 to 23.
 I am once again seeking clarification. The amendment would remove the words: 
''including any power to make regulations or give directions, but references in those provisions to the Secretary of State shall be treated as references to the appropriate authority.''
 It is not the clearest bit of legislative prose, but I believe that it empowers the Secretary of State to do just about anything that he or she feels is appropriate, which is an enormous widening of powers. I may be mistaken, and I again seek comfort from the Minister that the Bill will not do that. We should be proportionate—that is the word for the afternoon—in the powers that we allow to be adopted in the legislation, and I am concerned that the Bill is more generous than it should be.

Elliot Morley: The power of the Secretary of State is subject to a range of provisos and limits, some of which are set out in the Bill and some of which are the subject of normal parliamentary processes. The hon. Gentleman explained that the amendment is about the Secretary of State's powers. It might appear to remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations on works notices, but it would not achieve that. The amendment would remove only the ability of the National Assembly to make regulations for Wales, which seems a little hard on Wales.
 The regulation-making powers, which are clarified in the lines that the amendment would delete, relate to the form and content of works orders, the consultation to be undertaken locally, compensation to any person on whom a right of entry to undertake the works is 
 imposed and arrangements for the appeals. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support such provisions. Far from extending the powers of the Secretary of State, they protect those who may be affected by the use of the works notice. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Secretary of State is constrained by the lines that he wants to delete.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for that explanation. I did not read the Bill in that way, but on the strength of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 6, page 6, line 33, leave out subsection (7).
 If the agency is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under subsection (4) would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person, subsection (7) gives it the power to appeal to the High Court. Although I recognise that we may be dealing with both individuals and huge companies, I am not sure that that is the best way to empower the agency. It makes it the judge of whether a company can afford to deal with it, which I find difficult to understand. The law should apply equally, and it should not be up to a Government agency to decide which offenders should be punished by which institutions. It is possible that the drafting is misleading, but I suspect that the subsection allows the Environment Agency to offer different punishments to different people. I am uncomfortable with that.

Norman Baker: I have two concerns about the subsection, for slightly different reasons. If a person fails to comply with a works notice, subsection (6) provides that the Environment Agency may
''do what that person was required to do and may recover from him any costs or expenses reasonably incurred''
 in doing so. That seems entirely appropriate, and is in line with, for example, planning procedures, in which a council can restore a listed building and recoup the money from the owner of the building who has ignored the notice to repair it. There is nothing controversial about that. If subsection (6) contains a remedy, I do not see why subsection (7) is included—it adds nothing to subsection (6). 
 I agree that the agency should not perhaps make legalistic judgments. I also wonder why we are scrutinising legislation that may lead to an ineffectual remedy. If those who drafted the Bill believe that that might be the case, we should sort it out at this stage, rather than waiting for a problem to occur in future. 
 I therefore believe there to be three problems with the clause: the duplication of the powers given to the agency in subsection (6) by subsection (7); the question of whether the agency is the right body to make legalistic judgments; and whether we anticipate that the remedies will be ineffectual.

Elliot Morley: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's points. The amendment links to the previous amendment. It would remove from the agency the
 power to seek a civil remedy—an injunction—to deal with an immediate problem. The subsection gives the agency the power to seek an injunction, which can be obtained from the High Court but not from the Crown court.
 Immediate action cannot always be achieved by prosecution or the threat of it. It is envisaged that the power to seek an injunction would be used only in rare circumstances, in which an activity is under way that is causing damage, or has the potential to do so. The power is permissive, and will be used by the agency only when it considers that immediate action is necessary. That is likely to be in cases in which a works notice is not achieving its objective of remedying an environmental or water resource problem. If that power were removed, it would undermine the ability of the agency to deal with such a problem, and could lead to continuing environmental damage. That is the intention behind the inclusion of the subsection.

Bill Wiggin: Although that is a reasonable explanation, it is not relevant because the clause covers existing impounding works. If the works are already occurring, immediate action will not be required, because the situation will have been in existence for some time before the Bill is enacted. I therefore do not accept that the Minister's reply is accurate, because he suggests that such a situation will suddenly appear, when existing impounding works must have been going on for quite a long time.

Elliot Morley: Such action may or may not be required. There may be profit in the activities that are currently taking place that is greater than the impact of the criminal sanctions. The power enables the agency to take immediate action in circumstances in which an activity needs to be stopped because it is causing damage.

Norman Baker: I do not dissent from the objective stated by the Minister. Perhaps I am being rather dim, but can the Minister tell me why the Environment Agency cannot use the powers in subsection (6) to achieve that, without the need for the addition of subsection (7)?

Elliot Morley: The answer to that is that it is a matter of speed. Taking an injunction out under subsection (7) would be a much faster process. The court, rather than the agency, will decide whether an injunction should be granted, depending on the particular circumstances. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the powers of the agencies, the courts therefore represent a safeguard. I would have thought that we would all be keen to see action taken in a situation in which there is a serious risk of immediate damage.

Bill Wiggin: There are already some fairly draconian measures that can be taken against people who break the law. I learned that the words
''on conviction on indictment, to a fine.''
 in subsection 5(b) refer to a fine from the High Court. The Minister already has the power to refer anyone breaking the rules to the High Court, so subsection (7) is again unnecessary.

Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that if the issue is speed, which elicited his last response to me, it could also be covered by subsection (6)? It states:
''If a person on whom a works notice has been served under this section fails to comply with any of its requirements, the Agency may do''
 and so on. The phrase ''any of its requirements'' could involve a time scale, which could be as little as 24 hours. I do not understand why that does not cover the point.

Bill Wiggin: That is absolutely right. Earlier, we debated subsection (2), and what can be specified in the notice, which could also include a time period. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the part of the argument to which subsection (6) relates. I stand by my amendment: subsection (7) is not necessary.

Elliot Morley: Again, I will try to explain the situation. The problem is that a conviction or indictment under, I think, subsection (6)—

Bill Wiggin: Subsection (5)(b).

Elliot Morley: I am not sure about that. Conviction or indictment means going to a Crown court, which takes time. The High Court can accept emergency actions and the agency can go there out of hours, which it cannot do in a Crown court. It might help hon. Members if I lay out the sequence of events that subsection (7) will permit. In the event of a problem with unlicensed impounding, the sequence of action would be to serve first a notice requiring the action to be applied for, and secondly a works notice if urgent action is needed. The problem is that they may be ignored. It is all very well saying that the power exists, but what happens in that case? The next step would be an injunction if the works notice is ignored. Finally, the agency may have to do the work itself in default.

Norman Baker: The Minister helpfully sets out the sequential arrangements, the second of which is serving a works notice. Under subsection (6), if the notice has been served and any person fails to comply with its requirements, the agency may do what it needs to do. Thus according to subsection (6) there is no need to take out an injunction.

Elliot Morley: It is a time issue. The hon. Gentleman says that the agency may do the work, but it has to go through processes to do so, including that of access. From experience of previous such issues, I imagine it would need the court's authority and an injunction to do so. That is my interpretation of the matter.

Bill Wiggin: This has been a useful debate. The Minister has not yet convinced us that subsection (7) is vital to the Environment Agency. It seems to be the icing on the cake—the extra powers that the agency might like—but it is not convincing to say that it is for alacrity. The proposal deals with existing impounding works, which are already doing tremendous damage to the environment, so I cannot accept that it is a useful power for the future. Any future impounding will be covered by a separate provision, and will be
 automatically in default of a licence, and therefore subject to a completely separate procedure.
 We are talking about works that are already going on, about someone who has taken his concrete mixer to the beach or stream and started impounding, today, yesterday or weeks ago. I do not understand why the speed is relevant, and I will therefore find it difficult not to press the amendment. However, I can see that the Minister is seeking guidance, perhaps from minds greater than my own, so I shall remain on my feet until he is ready to dive in and reply.

Elliot Morley: I confirm what I have been saying: it is a final resort to seek powers to go on to someone else's land, as that involves all sorts of restrictions. Notices can be served, but that does not give the agency the power to intervene and, if necessary, rectify. A court injunction may be needed for that.
 I repeat that that is an extreme example, but we must ensure that all avenues are covered in a case in which damage is caused and the landowner, for whatever reason, refuses to co-operate. There is a safeguard in place, which is that the case must be made to the High Court before an injunction is served. That kind of fall-back power should be included in the Bill.

Norman Baker: We are now given the new reason of entering land. I do not dismiss that as not being an important legal aspect—it is relevant—but if subsection (6) does not give access to land, what does it do? It seems to be an empty subsection. If it does give access to land, subsection (7) is not necessary, but if it does not, it is unnecessary itself. Both subsections cannot be necessary.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has done a sterling job in defending the current drafting. I said earlier that we are keen to make progress, but I do not see how I can withdraw my amendment unless the Minister is prepared to consider the dilemma of subsections (6) and (7) and perhaps reword them on Report.

Elliot Morley: We are getting into heavy-duty legal issues, but if it helps the hon. Gentleman, I will write to him—and send a copy to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—with the detailed reasons for the differences and why subsections (6) and (7) are both important. It is fairly clear that their principal importance is that they are emergency powers, but I will write in greater detail if that will help.

Bill Wiggin: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, and I hope that the letter that he wrote to me—

Elliot Morley: It has appeared.

Bill Wiggin: Indeed, it appeared this morning, but only after the morning sitting. However, if the Minister writes, I will be grateful. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes because we have teased out some real difficulties thrown up by the drafting of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Rights of navigation, harbour

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in
clause 7, page 6, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 19 on page 7.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 12, in 
clause 7, page 6, line 45, leave out 'without intervening use'.
 Amendment No. 179, in 
clause 7, page 7, leave out lines 32 to 37.
 Clause stand part.

Sue Doughty: Much of the Bill relates to river systems, water companies' reservoirs and abstraction from streams and rivers for such purposes as sprinklers and trickle irrigation, and yet a large amount of water is in the navigation system. That concerns us, because if one takes a holistic view of water management, there does not seem to be a good reason to manage rivers but not canals, which also extract water. Water is pumped to the head of a canal and used to manage the waterway. That pumping and the holding of water creates reservoirs.
 Consideration has been given over the years to using canals and waterway systems as a national water grid. That has been an unpopular proposal, and there have been several objections to it.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that a considerable amount of water is taken from mid-Wales by canals to Birmingham and the west midlands. What she has just suggested already happens in Wales.

Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. It is important to understand what we are doing with water, particularly when moving it from one part of the country to another. That also relates to how we might transport water to the Thames gateway.

Candy Atherton: Is the hon. Lady aware that one effect of the amendment would be that, on all 2,500 miles of inland waterways, every lock gate and sluice would have to be licensed? Does she not consider that over-regulation?

Sue Doughty: At this stage we are talking about the reasons why we need some regulation in this matter. If it is possible to exempt locks and lock gates I would be happy to hear about that. There are wider environmental considerations. Moving water from one place to another in the normal course of events probably involves moving like to like—hard water within a hard water area and, when one is looking at holistic river systems, soft water through soft water areas—but if we use navigation systems as a grid, we will increasingly move hard water to soft water areas and soft water to hard water areas. That brings problems. Joints are weakened: in a hard water area they can be calcified, and running soft water through will weaken them and cause bursts and leaks.

Robert Key: I want to draw the hon. Lady's attention to our problems in Wiltshire. She is being a bit optimistic. Where there are compensation schemes to top up one chalk stream from another chalk stream that is flowing better, even minute chemical differences in the composition of the water can have a substantial environmental impact on the flora and fauna. That cannot be balanced out. If on a micro-scale there can be that upset a quarter of a mile away, the problem that she describes is much greater when one starts moving hard water to soft water.

Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that useful point. The problems that I refer to multiply the problems that he describes. Once hard water has been used, it may be returned to a river that runs soft water. The problems that he described would be massively increased. We seem to be saying that water movement in one water system is acceptable but has to be managed, but that movement from one to another is acceptable but there is no management. I have some sympathy with the lock gate argument, but I wish to draw attention to the problem of the environmental and ecological balance.
 The Environment Agency has regularly said that there should be controls. Some 60 per cent. of British waterways are allowed to pose a risk of impact on watercourses without any statutory control to protect the environment, safeguard other abstractors or manage water resources in a sustainable way. There is an anomaly when one looks at the future water framework directive. Again, we are managing waters, but not in a holistic way. The agency has already expressed concerns about this. There are ecological concerns. The life cycle of many species depends on how much water is in the river or reservoir. That reservoir might be used for pumping by a navigation system. If the water levels fall at the wrong time of year it may affect the breeding life cycle of the species living in it. We want to look at what the Government are doing with the catchment abstraction management strategy, but that seems difficult if we are to exclude a large amount of waterway systems in this way. 
 In closing it might be useful to give an example. English Nature has been particularly concerned about the navigation reservoir at Weston Turville. It is a site of special scientific interest. An important part of the wildlife interest is the reed bed that forms a nesting and feeding habitat for a range of species. A draw down at the wrong time of the year for prolonged periods would damage the reed bed and its ecological function and harm the conservation interests. The water table and its fluctuation are all part of that cyclical management. That is why we are so concerned about the mismanagement of ecosystems in these situations and why we should like to see them brought back into the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: Amendment No. 12 is much smaller. It would simply remove the words ''without intervening use''. I still look forward to finding out from the Minister why ''intervening use'' is so important. 12. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments and to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) for her intervention. It is a shame that some
 amendments that she tabled have been withdrawn, but—

David Amess: Order. To correct the hon. Gentleman, the amendments were not withdrawn. They were not selected, so it would be perfectly in order if the hon. Lady wished to catch my eye.

Bill Wiggin: I am most grateful, Mr. Amess. How useful to know that the amendments have not been withdrawn, just not selected. Glancing at them, they seemed to be constructive and helpful. I look forward to finding out why removing the phrase ''without intervening use'' would be such a damaging and corrupting amendment.

Elliot Morley: I can reassure the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), in particular, in relation to her concerns. Amendment No. 179 does the opposite of what she said, as I shall explain. I can reassure her that a key objective of the Bill is to bring significant transfers of water within the scope of the licensing system. That would apply if canals were used as a water grid, and there are such proposals. In those circumstances, there would be licensing in, if water is being used for the grid, and licensing out. They would not be exempt in those cases.
 Clause 7 recognises, however, that some activities, particularly day-to-day operational movements of water within navigation, harbour and conservancy systems, can continue to be outside control without risk to the environment. That picks up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. It is true that if we did not provide those exemptions, we would require a licence for every lock, every impounding and every dry dock in the inland waterway system, as well as reservoirs, which only feed that system. The three sets of circumstances in which we think that exemption can safely continue are described in the table in the clause. 
 Amendment No. 12 would extend further the scope of those exemptions. It envisages continuing an exemption for transfers with intervening use. However, that would still apply only if they came within the scope of the exempt activities described in the table: for example, the passing of transferred water through the cooling system of a power station. That extension of an exemption is undesirable. The principle of the new regime in the Bill is that any use of water—such as abstracting water for a power station, or from a canal water grid—comes within the scope of the Bill and would normally require a full licence if it is above the exemption threshold. That is a key test, whereas simply transferring it will require only a transfer licence, again if it is above the threshold. Abstraction from canals and harbours for use will require a licence, so the amendment would introduce a significant inconsistency into the system to allow instances of use above the threshold without the need for a licence. That would be inconsistent with the principle of use, which is why I cannot accept amendment No. 12. 
 Amendment. No. 178 would remove a number of features of the revisions that we are proposing to section 26 of the Water Resources Act 1991. It would 
 require the licensing of all transfers by navigation authorities within their own systems. We do not think that that is necessary. The amendment would increase the burden on the Environment Agency and navigation authorities—as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said—with little real impact on water resource management. It would have little benefit, but a great impact on navigation authorities. 
 The proposed third exemption in the table for supply reservoirs belonging to navigation authorities is limited to reservoirs whose sole outlet is directly into a canal and therefore where no other waters depend on flows from the reservoirs, and only where transfers are made by a navigation authority acting as a navigation authority. Therefore, we are applying very restrictive exemptions. 
 For example, British Waterways has about 40 reservoirs that may qualify for the exemption. Many are small, most are close to the canal that they serve and some do not even have a catchment. In the winter, surplus water is pumped or flows into the small reservoirs. It is impounded and, in the summer, allowed to flow back in. In some cases, there will not even be a flow, so there will not be an impact. Water in such reservoirs or canals can be requisitioned under the drought orders in the Bill. If water that is abstracted from such a reservoir or a canal served by a reservoir is used for sale, it will also be subject to abstraction licensing. 
 Amendment No. 179 would remove the qualification for exempting reservoirs that I have just referred to and allow all transfers from reservoirs to canals to be exempt in all circumstances. From the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford, I do not think that that was the intention behind the amendment, but even so we cannot support it. When reservoirs can affect other sources of supply outside the navigation or harbour authority's water systems, they need to be controlled, for the reasons she outlined. 
 I hope that I have clarified the reasoning behind the current drafting, and I invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and I take his point about the difference between using and not using water. We are debating one of the more difficult issues that the Bill tries to address, because all water, be it is used, consumed or unused, will still take part in the great cycle from sea to evaporation to rain and back to the sea again. I recognise that amendment No. 12 would not be helpful, so I do not have any problem in not pressing it, but we would not have needed this debate if the definition of ''using'' water had been clearer.

Sue Doughty: The Minister has dealt comprehensively with the points that I raised. We wanted to press him to see what was being done to manage the environmental cycle and the issues surrounding the idea of a national water grid. The understanding that that is effectively being managed is heartening, and it was useful to secure that assurance.
 We are still concerned about the reservoirs with important ecological systems. As the Minister does not look like intervening, we will probably have to leave the point for another time. However, I continue to have concerns about the reservoirs that are SSSIs. We need to know that they will be managed one way or the other, whether or not they are included in the Bill.

Elliot Morley: I do not know for certain, but some of the reservoirs that feed canals may be SSSIs or contain specially protected species. If so, special protections and restrictions will apply to them separately from the measures in the Bill. I can give the hon. Lady that assurance.

Candy Atherton: As a boater of some 20 years on our 2,500 miles of waterways, I know that quite a number of our reservoirs are covered by SSSI legislation and a range of environmental Acts. They are well loved and nurtured, and British Waterways has done much to enhance and protect the wildlife on our canals. We would all support that, having seen the work carried out on the Kennet and Avon canal, and on some waterways near the hon. Lady's own constituency.

Sue Doughty: I thank both the Minister and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. We have had an interesting and useful debate. We could have further discussions about improvements to canals, which also affect the ecology, but that was not really the purpose of the amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Rights to abstract small quantities

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in
clause 8, page 8, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Where the construction of a bore hole in connection with an exempt abstraction could affect the essential characteristics of water resources used by the licensed natural water abstractor, the consent of the Environment Agency must be sought.'.
 The amendment is important because it addresses the fears of the drinking water abstractors. I shall begin by saying how much I appreciated the 20 cu m small abstraction allowance. That is a positive provision, and I welcome it. However, if smaller abstractors sink a bore hole into the substrata and start abstracting water for use as drinking water, such as this Hildon water, or the excellent Radnor Hills, or the various other drinking waters and mineral waters that we all enjoy, they are subject to an enormous number of inspections and their water quality must be of the finest. I can see that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is itching to intervene on behalf of that blue-bottled water of which he is so fond. 
 There is, however, a risk. Not only will the abstraction licence for such a business be for 12 years, when it would normally expect to spread its costs over 20 years, but there is now a risk that others may also sink bore holes into the same rock substrata, 
 which could have a damaging effect on the quality of the water that the original company abstracts. 
 We are all aware of how much marketing is done on that type of bottled water, particularly with reference to the name of the spring. That means that those companies have very little flexibility in moving their source of water and so, since they have gone to the expense of setting up bottling facilities and quality control, they need to be protected. The amendment would offer them that protection and would also enable the Environment Agency to fulfil admirably what we would like to see as its role: policing the abstraction that takes place, for the quality of our environment. 
 I hope that the amount of water abstracted by bottling companies is not such a huge quantity as to be damaging, and it is important that we support that particularly British industry. Some 1.4 billion litres of domestic bottled water are drunk annually, out of a total of 1.8 billion bottles. A huge proportion of our domestic consumption is supplied from domestic sources, and we look to the Environment Agency to protect that industry properly. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I hope that the Minister, if he does not find my wording perfect, will at least adopt the concept that I have proposed. The issue is important to us all, and particularly to hon. Members, who are lucky enough to find mineral water in Committees such as this.

Norman Baker: I am all for protecting the mineral water industry, although I would point out that in some parts of the UK the tap water is of better quality than mineral water—although I am sure that that does not apply to the water that comes from Ceredigion. Moreover, from an environmental point of view, the emissions from transporting bottles of water here, there and everywhere should be borne in mind. However, let me not be churlish about that industry and instead turn to the amendment.
 The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is right to raise the possible consequences for the industry of what would otherwise be exempt abstractions. I am not sure that the wording works, but it is the Minister's job, not mine, to tell the hon. Gentleman. It is not clear from the amendment who would be required to seek the consent of the Environment Agency, and if it is the person who wanted to sink the bore hole, whether he would have the necessary expertise to determine whether there may be an effect that would require the Environment Agency's permission. It is not clear to me how the system would work. 
 What is clear is that we need a remedy either of upfront consent—I agree that we want to avoid that for very small abstractions—or of giving individuals the right to take action subsequently. I do not know the answer, and I hope that the Minister has found a way of striking a balance between the legitimate rights of those who wish to abstract small quantities and those who may be affected by it.

Simon Thomas: Let me say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I am sorry
 that I missed this morning's sitting; we were trying to sort out the leadership of Plaid Cymru overnight, although it will take a lot longer than that.
 I support the thrust of the amendment, which relates to an important matter that was mentioned on Second Reading. It is right that we have the opportunity to consider it in Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about how it might work. 
 I shall outline my concerns. There are two types of bottled water, that which is bottled at source, such as Ty Nant, in the famous blue bottle, which comes from my constituency, and generic bottled water, which may be called Brecon beacons bottled water or whatever, and can come from all over the place, not from one aquifer. It is not of the same importance as water bottled at source. As the hon. Member for Leominster said, the fountain, stream or aquifer cannot be moved, therefore although Ty Nant is no longer owned by a local family it still employs about 30 people, which is important in the area. 
 I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes that from an environmental point of view it is better to drink water from the tap, which I do except when I am in London, where I would not touch it with a bargepole. As I am used to the clean springs of west Wales, hon. Members would not expect me to defile my body with London water. 
 It is important to protect the industry and ensure that it can plan for its future. The Bill will introduce a licensing regime; some producers are concerned that it will limit the scope for investment when they discuss matters with banks and so on, because they will not have the guarantee of a long-term licensing system. On the whole, environmental considerations must outweigh other considerations. Water is such a precious resource, we cannot give licences willy-nilly and say, ''It is available for as long as you want. Invest on that basis.'' We must be able to say, ''Now the aquifer is exhausted we must protect the resources.'' 
 It must be the case, too, that a company that has a licence for only 12 years, for example, should be able to protect its investment. Bore holes, perhaps drilled by people who are trying to exploit the same water, should not undermine the company's investment and its long-term sustainable development. Much of our bottled water comes from rural areas, and depends on the source and purity of the water being maintained. It is easy for farmers to drill a small bore hole, particularly for summer use, and it is right that they should not be covered by the measure. Like the hon. Member for Leominster, I welcome the Government's approach, but it is also right to give the Environment Agency some powers of scrutiny so that it can be alerted to any problems. If a water resource in an area from which there is a lot of extraction is also being exhausted by several small unlicensed bore holes, the agency must have the ability to step in and say, ''Hang on. Let's consider the whole resource and its conservation. Let's accept that we have licensed one extraction and protect that, and try to deal with the rest.'' I do not really care how we do that. It is simply important that we get it right in the Bill, and the 
 amendment provides a useful opportunity to debate that and for the Minister to respond.

Elliot Morley: I certainly understand hon. Members' concerns on this issue. I appreciate what they are saying and I have some sympathy with it. There are some problems with the amendment, however, as I shall outline. The Bill introduces deregulation for small abstractions: they no longer have to be licensed. That is welcome in relation to agriculture in particular. It also means that we can concentrate on the bigger issues of water management. There is a balance within the Bill.
 I understand the concerns of mineral water companies that are extracting from a particular bore hole because that is important in respect of the composition of the water that they market. It is worth noting, however, that an abstraction licence does not offer a guarantee. The licence that the company holds does not offer a guarantee as to the continuing composition of the water that it can abstract, because compositions can change over time, for various reasons. The licence offers no guarantee that that particular chemical composition will remain in perpetuity. It may do, but there is no guarantee. Changes over time are a risk that mineral water companies face. 
 Under the current regime, the Environment Agency has a duty not to issue an abstraction licence that would derogate from the quantity of water available to a water bottler. That is useful in itself. The agency has separate duties to ensure that the groundwater is not contaminated, which is also important. If a company markets a product on its purity, it does not want groundwater contamination, and the agency has powers to deal with that, which are not changed by the Bill. The agency does not have duties to maintain the exact chemical composition of groundwater—indeed, it would be very difficult to do so, as I am sure hon. Members recognise. The agency does not have powers to control the drilling of bore holes where those are below the exemption threshold. The Water Resources Act 1991 regulates the abstraction of water and drilling of bore holes where abstraction is above the threshold. Therefore, there are protections for mineral water companies in terms of the amounts of water that can be taken out of the aquifer that serves them. 
 The amendment would require a person wishing to construct a bore hole for abstraction to obtain consent from the Environment Agency to do so if the bore hole might impact on groundwater that is bottled. I do not believe that the amendment would have the desired effect. The abstraction licensing system does not generally enable the agency to consider effects on water composition, only potential impacts on water quantity. The amendment would not change that. 
 It is possible that, if there were worries that there might be a large number of small extractions from the water company's aquifer, the Environment Agency, under the catchment strategies that it will put in place, would have the power to lower the existing thresholds. That would reduce the number of bore holes. The agency has some powers to deal with problems should they arise.

Norman Baker: In the event that the agency decides to lower the threshold, would that apply retrospectively?

Elliot Morley: I do not think that it would, because people would have the licence for what it was set for. The thresholds would be lowered in the case of future applications if it was felt that the amount of water being taken was at its limit, and therefore one could ensure that the thresholds were lowered below the 20 mark.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Bringing in this 20 cu m limit effectively gives people a great deal of freedom, particularly the farming community. That is good, but the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the environment is protected too. Focusing the Environment Agency only on the quantity of water that is abstracted fails in terms of the quality of the abstractions. I do not suggest for one second that my wording necessarily achieves what I want to see done, but that is not the whole debate.

Elliot Morley: To clarify, the Environment Agency has powers in relation to pollution control of the groundwater. It cannot guarantee or maintain the chemical composition.

Bill Wiggin: No one is asking for a guarantee of quality, but we want to prevent damage to the aquifer. This is a fundamentally different debate. All the quality controls exist after the water has come out of the ground. That is the responsibility of the water company. It is not allowed to bottle water that is not of a certain standard, nor may it add chlorine or any other chemicals. The water must be pure from the spring. It is worrying that these freedoms will open up the aquifer to many little abstractors. Surely the Environment Agency must have at least some responsibility for the quality of the aquifer. It does not have to protect the quality of the water. Punching lots of little holes into the aquifer will make it more liable to chemical pollution.

Simon Thomas: Did the hon. Gentleman get the same impression as I did from the Minister's final response when he said that the Environment Agency rightly had an overall view of the catchment area and the water being extracted from it? It could take action later on if the aquifer was being severely denuded. That would be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, because the bottled water industry might be in a perilous situation by the time that happened.

Bill Wiggin: That is exactly the problem. The water bottlers do not want to have their source reduced. They do not want to be told that because of damage that others have done by drilling into the same aquifer they cannot carry out their business anymore. I am sure that the Minister has visited a water bottling operation. If not, I would invite him to visit Malvern Water, which is in my constituency, Radnor Hills, which is just over the hill, or Moreton Hills, which is part of Brooks Soft Drinks and is near my constituency. Such operations are extremely expensive to set up. I repeat that they are long-term investments. They do not require quality control from
 the Environment Agency, but they require some sort of policing.
 Under the Bill, the Environment Agency will grant licences on a first come, first served basis. There is no quality concept in the Bill; it does not have to make a judgment about who should be allowed to abstract and who should not. That is only in the big amounts. There is no policing built into the Bill for the small amounts. If a water bottler's aquifer was damaged by another person he could not ask the Environment Agency to reduce the amount that they both abstract. He would want either compensation or, better still, to ensure that people who wish to come in and extract first seek permission from the Environment Agency. One would hope that it would have an idea of what the aquifer could take without damage. We are trying to be constructive here.

Elliot Morley: The Environment Agency will have an idea of what the aquifer can take without damage. While the threshold has been set at 20 cu m, it is in line with the definition of small quantities in existing legislation, which goes back to the 1960s. There is the other safeguard of catchment planning and strategies. If the threshold were lowered, those abstractors who currently fall below it would have to apply for a licence. We could then apply time-limited licences and use them as tools for water management within the powers in the Bill. Even on a small-scale abstraction, there are safeguards for overall management.

Bill Wiggin: That is very useful and I am grateful to the Minister because it is the first step in the right direction. There is another problem, which is that by the time someone has built a water bottling plant, they cannot afford to have their licence withdrawn. If the threshold is dropped and all abstractors in a particular catchment area or aquifer are expected to apply, some will be losers. Some will invest all their money in producing a water bottling operation and then lose their business.

Norman Baker: If the limit is lowered and someone has to apply for a licence that they would not previously have needed, is not the system retrospective, contrary to the earlier impression given by the Minister? That person would have taken a decision based on the law, which will effectively change, leaving them in a new position, so the Bill is retrospective.

Elliot Morley: It is quantitively the same.

Bill Wiggin: That is an important point because the figure of 20 cu m is a starting level for the Government. It is flexible, not set in stone. The Minister has intimated that, as the Bill will drop the threshold, people who previously did not have to apply for licences will now be forced to do so.
 However, that does not address the environmental issue—which we all cared about in the first place—of preventing the damage in the first place. Once muck starts to come through the bore holes into the plant, water bottling has to stop, and that is the end of the business. Owners of such businesses are not protected by the Environment Agency, and that is a real failure 
 in the Bill. Although I recognise that the amendment's wording is inadequate, I hoped that the Minister might take away the important point that we should inform abstractors that they are being monitored for the damage that they cause to the environment, at least in areas where they are abstracting for human consumption. I hope that he will come up with something innovative that might calm me on that important subject.

Elliot Morley: I am always seeking to calm the hon. Gentleman. I understand the concerns raised about people's businesses, and I hope to be able to reassure him about the mineral water business. Existing licensed abstractors, including mineral water companies, will enjoy special protected rights because they already have a licence. That means that the existing right to abstract must be safeguarded when new proposals are made.
 If the exemption threshold is too high—for example, if exempt abstractions cause problems—it can be reduced. The Environment Agency will know what the demands on the aquifer are and it will be able to take action before the damage is done, as it will be able to evaluate the demand of the main abstractor in a particular area. As I said, water companies that have held licences for some time have protected rights, which the agency will take into account.

Bill Wiggin: It is extremely helpful of the Minister to say that. I draw attention to the fact that I have drunk all my bottled water. If the Minister's comments allay companies' fears, I am grateful. If they do not, will the Minister be willing to meet a delegation from the sector and explain to them exactly how they will be protected?

Elliot Morley: I will certainly look at that possibility. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many people feel that the issue has an impact on them. I have tried to meet delegations, and I will continue to try to do so within the constraints of my diary.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for that. We have had an important debate on the subject, and the Minister has gone some way at least to point out some of the safeguards in the Bill. I still feel that the agency could do considerably more, and that there is no appeals structure for any failure. However, in light of what the Minister just said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 180, in
clause 8, page 8, line 28, leave out 'geographical' and insert 'river basin'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 186, in 
clause 11, page 13, line 10, leave out 'geographical' and insert 'river basin'.

Norman Baker: The Minister will be pleased to know that this is a gentle amendment, and not one that involves a matter of deep principle for me, so I hope that he can give some clarification that will enable us to move on. He will know that the water framework
 directive—that parallel legislation that we must not mention in this Committee, and which will be dealt with in other ways—talks about river basins. Indeed, river basins are central to the directive. That is reflected in the Scottish legislation, which of course does not implement the directive, according to what the Minister said this morning.
 The Minister will know that the directive requires the drafting of comprehensive river basin management plans to manage surface water and groundwater, with arrangements for providing information and consulting the public. In those circumstances, I am slightly surprised that river basins are not specified precisely in the clause, although the Minister may say that there is a good reason for that. A number of classifications of water are given, but they do not include river basins. Can the Minister clarify why those are absent? 
 Secondly, I seek clarification on the exact parameters of the geographical area. After all, a geographical area could be nothing and everything, which seems to give the Secretary of State unduly wide powers under the clause. What does the Minister have in mind for a geographical area, and is it in any way constrained? Does he anticipate that a river basin might be one such area?

Elliot Morley: I think that I can explain. The provision is fairly straightforward. The powers allow the Secretary of State to use geographical areas as the basis for the measures for local water resource availability and the accompanying thresholds. Those geographical areas will be determined by the Environment Agency's catchment abstraction management strategies. There are 129 catchments for which strategies will be developed. The strategies fit in with the water framework directive.
 Amendments Nos. 180 and 186 would replace the term ''geographical area'' with ''river basin'' in clauses 8 and 11. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants the wording to be consistent with that of the directive. However, I can tell him that that is unnecessary, and it would in fact hinder effective water resource management under the directive. Incidentally, the current phrasing allows the Secretary of State to ensure that there is effective management. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from focusing the variation on only that part of a river basin that needs it, which would mean that variations could be imposed unnecessarily. The clause uses the word ''geographical'' because one may want to vary only part of a catchment in a geographical area. 
 River basins are defined by reference to surface waters, not groundwaters. It will be necessary to control abstractions from groundwater bodies by changing the threshold in respect of those groundwaters for the purposes of the water framework directive, but that would not be possible if the power to vary were limited to river basins. That would undermine part of the protective purpose of the directive. In fact, the amendments would inhibit the flexibility to make changes at local levels. There are good reasons for the terminology, and it is not because 
 we are ignoring the directive—the Bill does not do that.

Norman Baker: In a strange moment of déjà vu, I had a feeling that the Minister would say that my amendment was unnecessary or otherwise unacceptable. I am grateful for the explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 8, page 8, leave out lines 35 to 37.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 15, in 
clause 8, page 8, line 35, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 38 and insert 'by order'.
 Amendment No. 181, in 
clause 8, page 8, line 36, leave out from 'Agency' to end of line 37.
 Amendment No. 17, in 
clause 8, page 9, leave out lines 24 to 26.
 Amendment No. 198, in 
clause 20, page 23, line 34, leave out from 'Agency' to end of line 35.

Bill Wiggin: Amendment No. 14 is about one of those little anomalies. Proposed new section 27A(2) contains a nonsensical circuit, stating:
''The Secretary of State shall not make such an order except upon the application of the Agency, but he may direct the Agency to make such an application.''
 That effectively means that he will tell the agency to apply to him, so that he can do what he wants to do. I find that a bizarre twist in the drafting, and it would be helpful for the Minister to explain why the Secretary of State needs to tell the agency to make an application when he should be able to do it himself. 
 Amendment No. 15 would make a minor change to give the Secretary of State exactly that power. I am no great draftsman of legal documents, and I accept that I may have made some heinous mistake, but the proposed new subsection did not make sense to me. I hope that the Minister will at least clarify why it is drafted in that way, so that I will not need to try to edit it in future.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is being unduly modest, as I do not think that he has made a mistake. In my experience, Members who are accused of making heinous mistakes are often proved to be right when the Government subsequently introduce rafts of amendments.
 The subsection is an odd formulation. We are invited to imagine a situation in which the Secretary of State tells the agency to make an application, which the Secretary of State presumably considers carefully before—lo and behold—deciding to accede to the request. When a parliamentary question is tabled to ask why he has acted like that, he answers, ''I was responding to a request from the Environment Agency.'' That is probably why the provision is drafted as it is. 
 I recommend amendment No. 181, which deals with the points that have been raised by both the hon. Member for Leominster and myself. It would also remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct the agency. Yet again, we are seeing the centre putting a finger into all the pies. Surely the practical judgment about whether variation is required should be made by the agency. It is the body set up to monitor such matters, and it knows whether there is a problem in a particular geographical area, such as a river basin. It should be able to advise the Secretary of State on whether there should be a change to the arrangements. 
 How can the Secretary of State, sitting in an office in London, tell the agency that there is a problem in Dorset and that it should apply to him for an order? Why does he need the power to direct the agency? It is entirely unnecessary. The legislation would be much improved by amendment No. 181, which would delete the second part of the subsection.

Elliot Morley: I can explain the situation. The proposed new section in clause 8 allows the threshold for abstraction control to be set according to local water resources, availability and pressure of demand. In some areas, the availability of water resources will allow a high threshold to be set, while a lower one will be required in others. That is good management, as I am sure hon. Members would agree.
 New section 27A allows the agency to apply for an order to amend the local threshold for abstraction licence control. That is proper because, as has been said, the agency's duty is to secure the proper use of our water resources. It will have the relevant information to inform such decisions, and we have every confidence in it. The information will be derived from the agency's catchment abstraction management strategies. 
 The clause allows the Secretary of State to intervene if she believes it to be necessary; for example, if she receives representations from the local MP, or if there are local reasons why it may be necessary to intervene. The clause gives her the power to direct the agency to apply for an order if it is felt desirable. I doubt whether that would be the case, but it is a question of needing accountability within the structures of the agency and Parliament. 
 Amendment No. 14 would remove from the Bill the ability of the agency to make an application for such an order, or for the Secretary of State to require an application to be made. The Secretary of State alone would have to trigger the making of such an order. Even under the clause as drafted, the Secretary of State has a discretion: she does not have to make an order even when the agency seeks one. Where a threshold-making order is to be made, there is quite rightly extensive consultation with interested parties. The order-making and consultation procedures in schedule 6 of the Water Resources Act 1991, as amended by the Bill, will apply. The amendment would therefore remove from the Bill an important element of public consultation and initiative in the local management of water resources. 
 Amendment No. 15 would have the same effect as amendment No. 14 in that it would remove the trigger to make orders setting alternative thresholds. However, it goes further. It would require the Secretary of State, when she decides to make an order, to make different provision for abstraction thresholds in different areas and for different classes of waters. The intention of new section 27A is to allow for flexibility in the abstraction threshold according to local circumstances and the information available to the Environment Agency. For example, it will allow one threshold for groundwater abstraction in one catchment, where water is abundant, and another in a neighbouring catchment where it is scarce. Amendment No. 15 would remove that flexibility and force different provisions even when they were not necessary. Again, it would remove the intended element of local consultation and initiative in such matters. 
 I deal now with amendment No. 17. The orders are new and are needed to remove regulation when appropriate, as well as to tighten it where water resources are under particular pressure. Applying the relevant provisions of section 219 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to the orders enables different provisions to be made in different circumstances. Transitional provisions can be made to ensure that abstractors can move from one threshold regime to another as easily as possible. The amendment would remove the ability, for example, to make different transitional provisions according to local circumstances. That may be to the detriment of existing licence holders and those new to the regime. I note that the powers to make transitional provisions in clause 105 will not apply to the orders, because the orders will be made under the Water Resources Act, not the Bill. There is no duplication of provision. 
 Amendments Nos. 181 and 198 would remove the ability of the Secretary of the State to direct the agency to apply for either a threshold order or to establish a register of protected rights. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the agency, and the ability to intervene on water resources issues provision forms part of the checks and balances, which rightly exist, on the exercise by the agency of its powers. Some hon. Members have already asked whether the agency's powers are too great and unfettered. The clause ensures that the line of accountability between the Secretary of State and the agency is clear. The power to intervene, exceptional though it is, may be used to make changes to reflect important national policy matters, or matters in relation to which the agency has not yet had the opportunity to take action. 
 We want proper resource management and proper accountability. The amendments are unnecessary, and I hope that I have given the Committee adequate assurances.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for reading that answer. I fear that it was written by the same person who drafted the Bill, particularly subsection (7) of new section 27A. It states:
''Paragraphs (e) and (f) of section 219(2) below apply in relation to orders under subsection (1) above as they apply to regulations made under this Act.''
 I may have read it wrong, but it makes no sense. If the Minister is seeking to persuade me that this is clarification, I am afraid I have to say that it is—to put it politely—an own goal. I accept that what the Minister read out is what he intends, and therefore that the amendments are perhaps not as helpful as I would like them to be, but when I read the jargon I thought that the only way in which we could cut to the Government's real intention was to suggest deletion. 
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for his contribution, because he also recognises that it is not good enough to put in a Bill things that do not make sense to ordinary human beings. The clause may make sense to lawyers and to experts in such matters, but it is not clear to ordinary people. Unless the clause is written in English, I shall find it difficult to withdraw the amendment, and am therefore still in two minds as to whether to do so.

Norman Baker: The clause raises an important point about where decisions are taken and to what extent the Secretary of State is prepared to let go, or wants to control all the minutiae of what takes place. All Departments have agencies and arm's-length bodies to undertake work on the ground—whether it be the Pension Service or the Environment Agency—the express purpose of which is to distance Ministers from those nitty-gritty individual decisions. Ministers should look at the umbrella picture, not the day-to-day decisions, and should employ in those agencies people with the expertise to take the necessary practical decisions such as, in this case, whether there should be a variation of a small quantity threshold. Why does the Secretary of State want the ability to vary the small quantity threshold on abstraction? What does that have to do with her role? The role of the Secretary of State is to appoint the agency, to set the policy and then to let people get on with it, not to interfere in such nitty-gritty issues.
 The Minister discussed the line of accountability. If the Minister wants more accountability, perhaps we should involve local flood defence committees or other bodies that have local credibility on such decision-making issues, rather than the Secretary of State. Under the clause as drafted, with the inclusion of my amendment No. 181—which, if I may gently say so to the hon. Member for Leominster, I think is a better amendment than his on this occasion—the Secretary of State would retain accountability. The amendment would simply remove the decision-making ability of the Secretary of State by requiring the agency to make the application. It would not prevent the Secretary of State from being involved because, in each case, the agency would still have to apply to her or him; public accountability would kick in at that point. The Secretary of State would not be excluded from the consideration, but would be prevented from initiating it. 
 The Minister and hon. Members will know, from other Bills that have passed through the House recently, and from serving on different Committees, that this issue is important. During the passage of the Police Reform Act 2002, for example, the question was raised whether the Home Secretary could issue instructions to police authorities to take particular 
 actions, or whether he had to wait for the police to initiate such actions. Hon. Members on both sides of the Standing Committee viewed it as an important principle that the Secretary of State should not be able to interfere in that way. We should not allow the Secretary of State, on the basis of a representation from one MP or other local interests, to override the Environment Agency, which has the specialist people on the ground and, presumably, knows its job, if it has not made an application. I believe that to be a matter of principle. 
 The extra line in the clause, to which amendment No. 181 refers, is improper in giving far too much power to the Secretary of State. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, I can conceive of no circumstances in which it would be right for a Secretary of State to intervene positively, and presumably against the wishes of the Environment Agency, to require it to make an application, when that agency is the expert on the ground and would know whether such an application should be made. That has to be wrong. For that reason, I shall, if I am able to do so, request a vote on amendment No. 181.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is getting rather over-excited about the provisions. He has scrutinised enough Bills to know that such provisions are fairly normal. It is frequently the case that legislation gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene—those are the normal checks and balances in a democratic society. The Secretary of State is not going to intervene in minor local issues. The point of the Environment Agency is that it is the delivery arm of DEFRA, while the Department itself concentrates on policy.

Norman Baker: I am sorry to intervene on the Minister again, but does he accept that, notwithstanding the intention that he has stated, the clause allows the Secretary of State to intervene in the minutiae of local issues? That might not be the intention of the present Secretary of State, but it is made possible by the wording of the Bill. We have to make legislation not for the present incumbent, but for all time.

Elliot Morley: I really cannot see, now or in the future, any Secretary of State ringing up a farmer on the Somerset levels and saying, ''Have you switched off the generator on your borehole? I need to know.'' That is not going to happen. If it did, it might be interpreted as interfering with minutiae, but it will not, given the roles of the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency. It is simply a line of accountability that would apply should issues of national importance or national policy be affected in relation to the thresholds in a particular area, in which case the Secretary of State might want to take a role. I cannot envisage many circumstances in which that would be likely.
 I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the professionalism and effectiveness of the Environment Agency. It is set up to get on with such work and has the expertise to do it. It is not the intention of the Government to interfere with that. This is simply the 
 normal guarantee of accountability under the democratic process that can be found in any legislation on any issue. That is all—there is nothing sinister about it and no desire for micro-management. Believe me, we all have enough to do without micro-managing water issues. 
 On the point made by the hon. Member for Leominster, I would not disagree that the language of legislation can be ponderous, difficult and hard to follow. The only consolation is that at least it is no longer written in Norman French. The hon. Gentleman had a bit of fun about the language. It does not flow smoothly; such language never does. However, there is a practical point: if we did not refer back to subsections, we would have to duplicate them in every section of the Bill and we would end up with a document three times the size of this one to say the same thing. There is a rationale to the use of language here, even though it is not elegant.

Bill Wiggin: In that case, I am more than willing to withdraw two thirds of my amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed, No. 181, in 
clause 8, page 8, line 36, leave out from 'Agency' to end of line 37.—[Norman Baker.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Rights to abstract for drainage purposes, etc

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in
clause 9, page 9, leave out lines 34 to 43.
 The subject of the amendment has probably already been dealt with, as it refers to the internal drainage boards and their ability to move water from one place to another. My main fear about subsection (2) related to whether water had been used a great deal. That has already dealt with, for which I am grateful. 
 I want to take the opportunity to heap praise on the internal drainage boards, especially the Lugg drainage board, which does a tremendous job in keeping my constituency as dry as possible, particularly in the winter. I must say, however, that that board feels especially hard done by by the Government and the Environment Agency. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Bill Wiggin: The matter to which amendment No. 18 relates has now been covered. I understand that a drainage board can carry out abstraction provided that it moves water only within its own area. It can therefore top up certain parts of its inland water at the expense of others. Will the Minister confirm that that is covered earlier in the Bill? If it is, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Elliot Morley: I am happy to confirm that. Moving water about within an IDB area will not be subject to licensing control. Abstraction will be subject to that control, as it is now, as will the transfer of water from one area to another. We have confidence in the management abilities of the IDBs, and we are trying to minimise bureaucracy.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for that confirmation. I have already heaped praise on the IDBs. I believe that they are threatened by regional drainage boards, but I suspect that we will discuss that later in our consideration of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 182, in
clause 9, page 10, line 11, leave out 'serious' and insert 'significant'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 183, in
clause 9, page 10, line 13, leave out 'serious' and insert 'significant'.
 No. 202, in 
clause 29, page 34, line 11, leave out 'serious' and insert 'significant'.

Sue Doughty: I shall not detain the Committee for long, unless we decide to rush to a vote. The aim of the amendment is to try to define what the Government mean by ''serious damage''—a loose term. I am concerned that someone may claim that certain damage is ''serious'', and that the matter will go to law, which would be an unhappy event. Solicitors will become rich discussing what is serious and what is not.
 In reality, we quite understand the need for emergency abstraction, especially as defined in new subsection (2A)(a), as occurring when there is a risk 
''to a human being of death, personal injury or harm to health''.
 It is clear that that is serious. However, what is ''serious damage to works'' or 
''serious damage to the environment''?
 Will the Minister clarify what that means? We believe that the replacement of ''serious'' with ''significant'' would help the legal definition, but these are strong powers, which must have some justification. We would welcome his response.

Elliot Morley: I am happy to deal with that point. I appreciate that the hon. Lady seeks clarification of the term ''serious damage'', but amendments Nos. 182 and 183 would relax the test that applies to abstraction, whereas amendment No. 202 would tighten it. The two groups of amendments do two opposite things. I am
 sure that that was not the intention, as amendment No. 182 is a probing amendment.
 The Environment Agency, in conjunction with English Nature and DEFRA, is currently working on formal guidance on the interpretation of these terms according to the circumstances where each is used. That will have to go through consultation. I can give the hon. Lady an idea of the time scale. We plan to have the guidance available early in 2004 and we intend to consult on it towards the end of that year. We understand the points that the hon. Lady makes. The guidance will have to go through the proper consultation procedure because there will be a lot of interest in how it will apply and how it will be interpreted. That is why we are drawing up the guidelines now. There will be an opportunity to discuss them.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for those comments. This is the sort of information that we are seeking. We need a much clearer definition of the sort of damage that would require emergency action. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
clause 9, page 10, line 20, after 'notice', insert 'within five days'.
 I simply seek to ensure that the Environment Agency reacts with the same speed as the person who is abstracting during an emergency. Under the Bill as drafted, someone undertaking an emergency abstraction must give notice to the Environment Agency within five days. It seems only reasonable that if the Environment Agency decides that it is not an emergency it should give him notice of that within five days. It is an equitable amendment and I hope that the Minister will adopt it forthwith.

Elliot Morley: There is a slight problem with the amendment, which I will be happy to explain to the Committee. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He proposes that once an abstractor has informed the agency of an emergency extraction, the agency must give notice to the abstractor that the abstraction should not or should no longer take place for emergency purposes within five days. The amendment would restrict when the agency can make a decision about when an emergency abstraction should not or should no longer be allowed. It would also appear to restrict the abstractor if the notice had to be provided from the time he informs the agency of the emergency abstraction. That would allow an emergency abstraction up to a maximum of five days.
 The clause applies when there is a life-threatening situation or one that would cause damage, when people who do not have a licence have to take immediate action to extract, such as when pumping out. That emergency abstraction, for whatever reason, may need to continue for longer than five days. The clause allows the agency discretion over when it would serve such a notice in the light of the particular circumstances. In some cases the emergency abstraction would have to be limited to one or two days. In other cases it might need to be for a longer period. I know that it is not the hon. Gentleman's 
 intention, but the amendment would unduly restrict the flexibility that the clause allows in emergencies.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I saw it coming. I do not agree that the amendment would restrict the abstraction to five days: it would restrict it to 10 days. The person carrying out the emergency abstraction can give notice on the fifth day and the Environment Agency would also have to give notice on its fifth day, so 10 days' extraction could take place. However, this does not relate exclusively to the risk to human health. There is serious damage to the environment. This is similar to what we dealt with earlier. One of the arguments that the Minister used was that we need to be quick when dealing with emergencies involving the environment, and particularly human health—death, personal injury and harm to health. I envisage situations in which a churchyard may be flooded. I hoped that the Minister would have a few examples of his own, but I do see that the proposal would restrict the agency.
 If the Minister can convince me that people at the agency will not pursue emergency abstractors because they have not given them notice that the abstraction is not lawful, it will be right to withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I hope that he will take it on board that the Environment Agency must be limited by some period as to what notice it gives. Five days may be inappropriate. I chose five days because that is the notice period that the agency has itself set in the Bill, but if that period is not appropriate, perhaps we can, by order, have a different period. If serious damage is being done, we need to take the notice period seriously, too.

Elliot Morley: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that I have every confidence that the Environment Agency will use its judgment in the particular circumstances. That is why we are allowing it some discretion over how it applies the provision and how it deals with situations.

Bill Wiggin: I expected the Minister to say that, too. I am not completely comfortable with it, and we may have to revisit the issue, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Robert Key: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in
clause 9, page 10, line 32, leave out 'warping'.
 Unless we amend the Bill along the lines that I suggest, or the Minister suggests an alternative, I fear that we are about to make a mistake in the legislation. ''Warping'' appears to be a local dialect term that is not used throughout the country. It is unlikely to have an established legal basis. It certainly has different meanings in different parts of the country. What is down in the Bill as ''warping'' is known in my river catchment area as flooding. Further downstream on the Hampshire Avon, in the tidal part by the sea, the term ''warping'' is used, but it refers to tidal flooding, which is different from what we are discussing. I understand that in the Minister's constituency ''warping'' means digging out the silt from channels 
 and putting it on the land, which is not what I understand by the term ''drowning''. 
 The Department has produced a definition in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Paragraph 53 on page 12 states that warping is 
''the abstraction of water which contains silt onto agricultural land so that the silt can deposit and act as a fertiliser''.
 However, that is only part of the story, as I shall explain. 
 There was a discussion in the other place about drowning. A distinction was drawn between fortuitous warping and managed warping. Fortuitous warping happens when a river overflows in a flood and deposits. Managed warping happens when we impound water and control it before putting it back into the river that we took it out of in the first place. 
 I had better declare my interests, none of which are financial, other than being a disbenefit to me. I am a subscribing member of the Harnham Water Meadows Trust in Salisbury, and I am a member of the council of Salisbury cathedral, which owns the Harnham water meadows. In other words, I am intimately familiar with water meadows and have been since I started paddling in them in Salisbury at the age of about 2. I have been ankle high to a crayfish in water meadows all that time. However, we are not talking only about Harnham water meadows, Woodford Valley water meadows, the Chalke Valley water meadows or elsewhere on the Hampshire Avon. We are talking about a feature of the watery landscape of England, from north to south and east to west. 
 If we do not amend the Bill, we will damage the prospects for existing systems of drowning or warping and discourage new projects. After all, a licence application will cost £100, but the annual fee is dependent on the volume. That is hugely significant. The volume of water, which depends largely on the weather, can vary hugely. A watercress grower in my constituency told me only yesterday that he has a licence for some 1.128 million gallons a day. As much as 4 million gallons of water a day flows through the stream past his watercress beds, but it can drop in the summer to 200,000 gallons a day. Then, water has to be lifted by pumps to keep his business going. It is all very well saying, ''Let's licence it,'' but the cost implications could be substantial. What would it mean for a heritage charity seeking to restore water meadows in a wet year? 
 There has been a huge revolution in the management of water basins in my lifetime. I regret to say that it has not been a glorious revolution. Since the era of water bailiffs, drowners and weed-cutting machines, we have completely changed our philosophy. In my childhood on the Hampshire Avon, the philosophy was all about keeping the water back, conserving it, using it and doing all that one could with it before it ran down to the sea. We therefore had water meadows and systems of weirs and sluices. 
 The philosophy now is to get the water off the land and into the sea as quickly as possible. The sluices 
 have been taken out, the weirs have been dismantled, and now—this is where we are about to make another mistake—it is impossible to flood the water meadows when the river is low, because one cannot impound the water. If it is not possible to impound the water, why are we talking about charging an abstraction fee? That is why this is a rather dangerous piece of legislation. 
 When it comes to the debate about the historic water meadows, Salisbury has made a famous major contribution to the landscape. I am talking about the Constable water meadows, for goodness' sake. The problem is that DEFRA is, on the one hand, busy giving grants of public money to encourage heritage organisations to restore water meadows and sluices while, on the other, the legislation says that we will now tax them at the other end by introducing licences and applications. That simply does not make sense. The impact of those provisions was recognised by the only Member of the other place, during their debate on the subject, who really knew what he was talking about, my fellow Wiltshireman Lord Carter, who raised the problem of there being no more drowners or sluices. 
 That is important, because, as I said, in the interest of flood prevention most of the old weirs and sluices were removed to permit the easier release of flood water in times of high rainfall. We are talking about the chalk landscape of England, and we need to make a huge distinction between springs and the run-off of rainfall and the rising of the water table. They are completely different, and they happen at different times. We can have a fortnight of cloudburst, and the water will run off, but if the water level rises because of the springs, we will find 10 days later that the springs have risen and the villages are flooded. We must be precise about what we mean. 
 The trouble with removing all the sluices is that, at times of low water levels, we simply cannot retain sensible water levels all the way up the main streams, and therefore cannot control the level of the river as we used to. The hatches have gone in the Harnham Mill area of the Harnham water meadows, the controls on the Nadder at the old Fisherton mill have gone, and also those on the Avon at Normanton. There is a big impact on the whole river catchment area. If we were discussing—dare I mention it—the water framework directive and catchment management, the very thing that we are trying to discourage would encourage better management. 
 There is a huge problem, but there are answers. In the other place, Baroness Young of Old Scone suggested in Grand Committee, on 1 April at page 103, that there might be '''meadow-explicit' agreements.'' The wildlife trusts have also suggested that a transfer licence could be used to impose less onerous conditions when warping—let us call it that for the sake of argument—is concerned. 
 It is important that we do not all roll over and say that this matter is unimportant because we are not talking about a lot of water or money. We have seen such a huge revolution in the attitude to water management in the catchment of the Hampshire Avon in my lifetime and, although I may be pushing up the daisies when it happens, I suspect that the 
 pendulum will swing back and that we will return to managing water in a way that we have now apparently lost. 
 We are not just talking about silt fertilising the grass or about flood control; there is another important benefit of water meadows, which was not mentioned in the other place. They can ameliorate the temperature of the ground on which the new grass grows. If a field is flooded with water, it will not freeze, so the grass will provide what farmers call an early bite for ruminants. We should not sniff at that. The old way of working is with natural fertiliser. The land level is built up by a small amount and flooded to a depth of a quarter or half an inch of water, which flows along the ridges and down the gullies back into the river. That provides a natural fertiliser and allows silt to build up the ground and warmth to encourage the grass.

Bill Wiggin: There is another advantage, which is that the silt stays on the fields, rather than going into the watercourses and encouraging the growth of waterweed during the later part of the season. That is a vital part of maintaining the watercourses and preventing the overgrowth of weed, which is currently blamed on farmers allowing nitrogen to seep into the water.

Robert Key: My hon. Friend is right, but the advantages do not stop there. Warping takes out of the water a lot of other undesirable compounds, including most notably hormones from the pill. Studies have shown that the pill has had a dramatic impact on our watercourses and fish life. It de-sexes mayflies and other insects, which do not breed. That in turn affects fish. Warping or drowning—whatever we eventually decide to call it—can have a great impact.
 I ask the Minister to pause and be absolutely sure that we all agree about the definition of a word that has different meanings in different parts of the country. It has a greater impact than I suspect a lot of people understand. If I sound passionate in my advocacy of this cause, it is because I am passionate. I have observed closely the river basin around Salisbury—a city that was founded at the confluence of five rivers—and the basin is a crucial part of what only last summer Country Life called the most beautiful view in the world.

Simon Thomas: A lot of what the hon. Gentleman said chimed with my experiences in an important part of my constituency—the SSSI along the Dyfi estuary. That water meadow is protected as a bird reserve for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and part of a special area of conservation. I confess that before I had read the Bill, I did not have a clue what warping was—I thought that it was something to do with the Starship Enterprise—but there cannot be anything more warped than a fish that takes in hormones from the human body. That is perhaps another definition of warping.
 I recently visited the restoration of water meadows along the Dyfi estuary, which aims to restore the area's bird population, particularly that of the lapwing. I saw the immense work that had been done with spreading silt on the land and preparing the trenches for the 
 waterways to maintain dragonflies and the myriad insects that support the bird population. A huge amount of work had gone in to enable the RSPB to grow the lapwing population, which has doubled almost every year in the past few years. All that work has been done in precisely the way that the hon. Gentleman described: by managing the water resources. 
 Having heard the hon. Gentleman and having had the experience of visiting the site, I would like the Minister to give an assurance both that such voluntary and conservation work will not be made more difficult or more expensive by the Bill, and that he will consider an exemption for the restoration of water meadows, which was mentioned in the other place. I am talking about tidal water meadows, which are somewhat different from the Salisbury experience, but the same principle applies, because at the end of the day we are dealing with the management of fresh water and streams, and so on. 
 The hon. Gentleman made a good point, and some interesting and pertinent questions have been raised.

Elliot Morley: I enjoyed the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for water meadows, which was clear from his knowledge about warping. He will know that I have an interest in such issues myself; indeed, as I said, in my own part of the world, warping was an important part of land reclamation. It involved dredging and also inundation, in relation to the silt on the land. The process is well known and understood.
 My officials, who as ever are extremely well prepared, have a definition from the Oxford English dictionary, so that we know exactly what we are talking about. The concise Oxford dictionary says that to warp is to 
''silt over (land) with warp, by flooding'',
 whereas a water meadow is 
''a meadow periodically flooded by stream or river''.
 I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman made, but I assure him that I of all people do not want to see restrictions in the Bill that would hinder the management of water meadows. We have few enough water meadows in this country, and they are an important environmental and ecological resource. The intention behind the clause is to bring all significant abstractions of water under control. 
 I accept that, generally speaking, warping would not involve abstraction from rivers in the way that we would understand the term—it generally involves inundation, and the use of sluice gates and flooding. Warping, or controlled inundation of land, is often done as part of flood measures. Land is often allowed to flood during the winter peaks, when there are high levels of water in the rivers, so they overflow into water meadows and flood plains. Sometimes the process is natural and sometimes it is deliberate. Where it is natural, it is often a cycle of management, similar to washes, for instance, which were used traditionally. The land floods in the winter, cattle are put on for 
 grazing in the spring and summer, and they are taken off again in the winter. 
 Those practices will not come under abstraction control, because they are not under abstraction control now and there is nothing in the Bill that would change those patterns. I can therefore give the hon. Member for Salisbury an assurance in relation to his circumstances. As far as I can see, abstraction licences will not apply to the Salisbury water meadows, unless abstraction from the river is applied. 
 It might be useful if I give the hon. Gentleman some written details in relation to the circumstances of the case that he has made on what would and would not apply, so that we are clear. It is not our intention, generally speaking, to interfere with such management, but it is our intention to bring major extractions from river systems under control. In some cases, warping may fall within that category, depending on the circumstances.

Robert Key: That is a generous suggestion from the Minister. May I ask him to have a word with his ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw)? He visited the water meadows last month and can give him a first-hand, insider's guide.
 I am grateful to the Minister, and it would be churlish of me not to withdraw the amendment. I will study carefully what he has said and consult the people involved in this matter. We may need to revisit it on Report, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in
clause 9, page 10, leave out lines 36 to 39.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 9, page 10, line 39, at end add 'including crop rotation'.

Elliot Morley: The amendment removes the change to section 29 of the Water Resources Act 1991 which was introduced through an amendment in the other place. That amendment added a new subsection, which appears to allow the Environment Agency to decide whether abstractions for trickle irrigation should be subject to licensing. However, the decision to include trickle irrigation has already been taken and is given effect through what will become subsection (5) of section 29.
 We understand that the intention behind the amendment was to ensure that, when the agency takes individual licensing decisions, it must consider how long trickle irrigation has been practised. If that was the intention, we have no problem—it is not an unreasonable position to take. When making transitional regulations that will bring trickle irrigation under licence control, we can include a requirement that the agency considers the history of the irrigation scheme. 
 Amendment No. 20 seeks to ensure that, as well as considering the history of such a scheme, the agency will also take account of periods when a farmer has 
 not abstracted water because of crop rotation. We understand that there may be gaps in the irrigation system because of the rotation used by individual farmers. That will form part of the agency's consideration of the history of a scheme, which will be set out in the transitional regulations. 
 I hope that, given that we have clarified our intentions to make transitional arrangements for introducing trickle irrigation licensing, the hon. Member for Leominster will support our amendment and withdraw his own.

Bill Wiggin: I was delighted with the Minister's proposals, although trickle irrigation is not mentioned in proposed new subsection (5)(a) or (b). Only irrigation is mentioned, which is the fundamental problem.
 Although I am grateful that the agency will consider both crop rotation and the length of time for which abstraction has been practised, a further problem is that an unused licence will be valid for only four years. The crop rotation referred to in my amendment could be anything up to seven years. I suspect that if the Government license genetically modified crops, that will affect crop rotation. Some types of crop—such as barley grown after wheat—will be sensitive to genetic changes so farmers may be required to grow non-related crops, such as potatoes, in the meantime. I understand that that history will be considered only over four years. If that period is extended to seven years or longer, that might help those farmers who irrigate. 
 The Minister slipped one other thing into the debate, which was the word ''trickle''. As I pointed out, trickle irrigation is not mentioned in proposed new subsection (5)(a) or (b). Trickle irrigation is not the only kind of irrigation. Some irrigation is perfectly acceptable if there is plenty of water, and that should also be considered. If the Minister is happy to agree that we are not exclusively discussing trickle irrigation, I will be more comfortable allowing my amendment to fall.

Elliot Morley: I did not want inadvertently to suggest that amendment No. 20 was only about trickle irrigation, but the measure applies to that in the same way as to other irrigation methods. It is the history of the irrigation scheme that is important, whichever irrigation method applies. We would expect the agency to take account of the periods when a farmer has not extracted water for crop rotation. Any periods of non-use in the past may be considered, and the consideration is not limited to four years. Individual farmers will be able to make that particular case.

Bill Wiggin: As I understand it, that will be part of the Environment Agency's guidelines, which is why it does not need to be in the Bill.
 I would have been sorely tempted to put my amendment to the vote, but the Minister has satisfied my requirements, for which I am grateful. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Amendments relating to section 9

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 10, page 11, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
 This amendment may be unnecessary. I seek clarification because I suspect that this part of the Bill has been superseded by the 20 cu m allowance. Although I said that the Environment Agency should have some responsibilities to protect certain abstractors, I suspect that this part of the Bill does not relate to that. Provided that that is correct, I will have no problem withdrawing the amendment.

Elliot Morley: I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. We have covered the details in the previous discussion.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 184, in
clause 10, page 11, line 25, after 'not', insert 'significantly'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 185, in
clause 10, page 11, line 39, after 'would', insert 'significantly'.

Sue Doughty: The amendment seeks clarification on the balance between environmental protection and the interests of mining and quarrying companies. Mining is a consumptive water user. It is not a closed system, and it alters the geographical location and quality of water. In whose interests is the balance weighted? We seek clarification from the Government on how much of an impact water conservation must have on a company's operations for that company's interests to outweigh conservation needs. The Bill does not make that clear.

Elliot Morley: Subsection (5) allows the agency to issue to companies conducting mineral exploration a notice setting out measures that they must take to conserve water. The amendments relate to subsections (5) and (6). Subsection (5) allows the agency to make that notice clear, whereas subsection (6) provides a mechanism to appeal against the notice if the mining company disputes the conditions that are being applied.
 The amendments would change the emphasis, meaning that the mining operator could appeal to the Secretary of State against a conservation notice only if the notice significantly interfered with the mineral winnings. We do not believe that that is right, as it would narrow the conditions in which a group of extractors can appeal. 
 I understand the hon. Lady's point, but it is a matter of balance. The agency has the power to apply the conditions, which we think is right—the Bill is about water resource management—but, as several hon. Members have said, people have legitimate business interests and they must have the right to appeal if they feel that the conditions are unreasonable. We think that the balance in the Bill is right.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We do not wish to restrict the reasonable right of businesses to operate in the way that they expect, as long as they are being managed within the provisions described by the Minister. Having heard his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in
clause 10, page 11, line 46, leave out 
 'may', if he thinks fit' 
 and insert 'must'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 23, in 
clause 10, page 12, leave out lines 10 and 11.

Bill Wiggin: This is a matter of clarification. I am seeking to add the word ''must'', rather than allow the Minister the facility to make the judgment for himself. It is important to note that the Secretary of State
''may, if he thinks fit''
 allow a local inquiry or appeal, but that would be essential. I hope that the Committee will agree that allowing the Secretary of State to do as he ''thinks fit'' is probably less efficient than ensuring that he persists with a local inquiry or affords the appellant and the agency an opportunity to appeal before being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State. It is not a terribly complicated amendment. 
 Amendment No. 23 would remove lines 9 and 10, which state that the decision of the Secretary of State on any appeal against a conservation notice shall be final. If an appellant felt that the Secretary of State was wrong, he ought to have the right to go to court, and the amendment would allow that to take place. These are not major changes, but just a little tidying up. I hope that the Minister has an interesting reason why that may not be possible.

Norman Baker: I am in something of a quandary because I agree with one of the amendments and not the other. Let me try to elucidate. The first amendment seems entirely sensible. It is a matter of natural justice that there should be a proper process for dealing with appeals. I am concerned that, as I read the provision, the Secretary of State could simply say, ''That's it, I've decided'', without the matter being properly examined. The Minister may say that that will not happen, in which case I do not see why it should not be a standard process for a local inquiry to be held, or for the opportunity afforded by new section 199A(3)(b) to be used. Those two methods seem entirely acceptable.
 I do not know in what circumstances neither process would be triggered, and that is what I want the Minister to clarify. Are there circumstances in which neither an inquiry would be held nor the opportunity afforded for appeal and, if so, what are they? Unless there are very good reasons, it seems to me that one of those two options ought to apply. 
 On the second amendment, I suppose that someone has to take the final decision. I would ask the Minister to confirm that, notwithstanding the terms of the 
 clause, it would be open to a person appealing to pursue the matter to judicial review if he or she felt that the Minister had misapplied the law. If that opportunity is there, the decision of the Secretary of State is not final. I should be grateful for confirmation of that.

Elliot Morley: I think that I can provide that information. Amendment No. 22 relates to clause 10(6). As has rightly been stated, that maintains the current provisions for appeals against a conservation notice issued by the agency in response to a notice of intention to drill bore holes to search for or extract minerals underground. That part of the provision enables the Secretary of State, as is the case now, to arrange for an inquiry or hearing if he or she thinks that it would be appropriate, and it goes on to require the Secretary of State to arrange an inquiry or hearing if the appellant or the agency requests one. The interests of the appellant and the agency are therefore catered for. The amendment would remove any discretion, obliging the Secretary of State to hold a hearing or inquiry regardless of the wishes of the appellant, the agency or anyone else. That seems very restrictive.
 Amendment No. 23 seeks to remove the reference to decisions by the Secretary of State on appeal being final. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes, I can explain that appeals are normally decided by the Secretary of State based on the recommendation of an independent inspector, just like planning appeals—there is a process for that. Therefore, further scope for appeal should properly be limited to matters that are appropriate for consideration by a judicial review. 
 Once a decision has been made in the planning process, where an appeal and the recommendation of an independent inspector are involved, that is it. However, there is the opportunity for judicial review. That will still be possible under the Bill. The clause does not exclude judicial review in the event of an error in law or procedure; the safeguard is still there. The amendments are unduly inflexible and do not allow for an element of discretion relating to the circumstances. The safeguards that hon. Members are asking for already exist.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for his comments on amendment No. 22. Whether the Secretary of State thinks it fit to
''afford to the appellant and the Agency an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose'',
 or whether he must do that hardly makes a difference. Whether the Secretary of State wants a local inquiry to be held is different, and I accept that that might require the him to use his own judgment. However, it is not necessarily a bad thing to insist that the Secretary of State allow the appeal process to speak to a third person. 
 I take the point that the hon. Member for Lewes made about amendment No. 23 and whether the 
''the decision of the Secretary of State on any appeal against a conservation notice shall be final.'',
 and I am willing to let that amendment fall. It is reasonable that the Secretary of State should have the responsibility and take the decision. However, I do not see why the Secretary of State should have the opportunity to wriggle out—

Norman Baker: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to lines five to seven on page 12? I have had a chance to look at them more closely while he has been speaking. I do not want to do the Minister's job for him but, as I read it, the Secretary of State is required to have such a hearing if requested to do so by the appellant. That seems to be the essential safeguard that both of us are, properly, looking for.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for that information. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and therefore I shall not press the Minister any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Power to provide for further exemptions

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 11, page 13, line 15, at end insert— 
 '(d) a prescribed industry, or 
 (e) trickle irrigation.'.
 We touched on trickle irrigation when debating a previous clause. I seek to have trickle irrigation added to the list of general exemptions, which would be helpful. The Government have assured me that the agency will take irrigation into consideration, but there is a difference between sprayer and water-gun irrigation of the sort that we see in fields, and trickle irrigation, in which water seeps out of a hose pipe with holes. I am told that it is much more efficient and that it uses far less water because the water is more targeted. That is why it would be a worthy exemption. 
 I also ask in the amendment for ''a prescribed industry'' to be added to the list of exemptions. I had in mind bottled water, but certain industries may or may not be omitted, and allowing the Government to prescribe which industries they should be would be constructive.

Elliot Morley: I do not dispute that there is a difference between trickle irrigation and spray irrigation. Nor do I dispute the fact that trickle irrigation is generally thought to be a more efficient use of water. However, trickle irrigation can use significant amounts of water, depending on how it is managed. For example, if trickle irrigation is left on night and day, it can use rather large quantities of water. It is therefore appropriate that it should be included, so that we can manage water resources more carefully. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
 The amendment would also preserve the scope for exemptions from the licensing system for specific purposes. The clause already allows exemptions for the types of abstractions listed, when it is sensible to do so in order to provide for the available water resources, so they do not need to be specified. However, trickle irrigation, although desirable, is a 
 significant water user, and it needs to be brought under the remit of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: I hoped that the Government would seize on the opportunity to encourage trickle irrigation, rather than treat it like other sorts of irrigation. That was one of the purposes of the amendment. I take the Minister's point about prescribed industries being included in another part of the Bill, and I have no problem in withdrawing that suggestion, but I am sad that the Government have missed a trick with trickle irrigation. It would have been helpful to emphasise to those large-scale farmers who use more than 20 cu m of water a day that it is the way forward. The amendment would therefore have been a useful addition to the Bill.

Elliot Morley: I conceded that trickle irrigation has benefits. Depending on how the agency handles the licensing regime, people may see an advantage in moving towards using trickle irrigation. It is a matter for future consultation on how the abstraction licensing system is to be applied.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Orders under section 33 of the WRA, etc

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in
clause 12, page 14, line 9, at end insert 
 'or partly in England and partly in Scotland'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 28, in 
clause 12, page 14, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(iii) the Scottish Parliament, in relation to the Scottish part,'.

Bill Wiggin: This is a probing amendment, to find out exactly how much water flows from Scotland to England—and perhaps the other way.

Candy Atherton: What about the whisky?

Bill Wiggin: It is nearly time.
 The amendment deals with the first part of cross-border problems. This is an English and Welsh Bill, yet obviously we must recognise that droughts do not respect boundaries in the way that we might like. The important point relates to water that runs across the border, or to issues between the Scottish Parliament and the northern part of England. This useful amendment will certainly tease out from the Government how they are going to deal with the problem.

Elliot Morley: This is an easy one for me because the hon. Gentleman states that he tabled this probing amendment to find out exactly how much water comes from Scotland into England for water use, and the answer is none. There are no existing section 33 exemption orders that partly affect England and Scotland, and the abstraction provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991 do not apply in Scotland, nor does any part of the exemption arising under the
 Northumbria Water Authority Act 1981 extend to geographical areas of Scotland. I hope that that is the answer for which he was looking.

Bill Wiggin: I am most grateful to the Minister. That answer solves the problems that I had, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in
clause 12, page 14, line 36, leave out subsections (7) to (9).
 This is another probing amendment. An order made under subsection (1)(b) revokes the exception order wholly or wholly in so far as it is not already revoked. The order under subsection (1)(b) may also repeal so much of the local or private Act as constitutes the power to make the exception order. As I read that, I had one of my little English crises, and things do not get much better as we continue. Once again, we are looking for clarity in legislation, and I do not wish to delay the Committee unduly if the Minister can give a proper and helpful explanation. I seek his guidance.

Elliot Morley: We considered clause 12 when we dealt with amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Amendment No. 26 would remove provisions that are needed satisfactorily to deal with the revocation of existing exemption orders. For example, the amendment fails to recognise the need for powers in primary legislation to allow the Secretary of State to protect waters in England, if the National Assembly for Wales repealed an exception order in Wales, because there might be a knock-on impact. If those provisions were not contained in primary legislation, an equivalent provision would need to be made separately in each order to remove the 12 existing exemption orders and one local Act. It is therefore appropriate that provisions dealing with the revocation of existing exemption orders are in the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister. If the current legislative structure is simply being amended, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 18 September at five minutes to Nine o'clock.